Yo, Andy. I see you've recovered (somewhat) from your birthday. 
This post might get moved to "site issues" for a couple of reasons - to increase visibility to the guys who can answer far more accurately than I, and because...well, these are site issues.
What happens when things go wrong is probably due to code changes which didn't succeed, or are in progress (going to a more finalized version)... at least, that's what makes sense to me. Bear in mind I could be wrong. Stardock does not share its plans with me and frankly, I don't need it to.
I doubt you'll get an incredibly detailed answer because... well frankly, what is your need to know? Not trying to be mean or insensitive, but I never understood why people want/need to know the inner workings of Stardock. After all, as much as might be revealed might only cause more FUD.
Could be I'm just a dummy... but I never really wanted to know all that stuff. Mostly, when there was a problem, I just hoped it would get fixed. As time went on, I saw more and more stuff break or be removed for cause... but also some stuff got fixed. There is a 'list' of stuff to get fixed, but also a 'list' of Stardock's priority of assignment of people to its projects.
That's how I put it together... I'm probably wrong here hand there about it, but it seems to make sense that way.
